- How to Tell Whether a TLD is a Generic TLD or a Proprietary TLD
- The Mystery of Self-Organisation
- The most sinister of all retard media hoaxes is the idea that someone has “arrived” in society when they are mentioned in a prominent retard media publication
- Knowing how to spell a word is not down to some random person’s opinion — or is it?
- The Uneducated Masses Will Probably Choose the Free Lunch
Everywhere we look, we identify organisations ordered top-down (by fiat), or via “grass roots” movements,… — or, if we have no clue how a specific order came about, we simply say it came about “by itself”.
There was, for example, much discussion about such topics a little over a century ago, when people were interested to know how evolution works. Why do giraffes have long necks? By “natural selection”, it is said — pretty much: via self-organisation. Of course one could also say that the trees grew high, and that is why giraffes have long necks. This begs the question: Why did the trees grow high? And perhaps the best answer might be: Well, not all of them did, but the smaller trees got eaten up by the giraffes. There is no end to this — we simply don’t know.
Ah, but here come some hackers with computers — will they solve such questions with big data? No. They have not even yet jotted down whether the Earth revolves on its axis in a clockwise direction, or a counter-clockwise direction. If some of them are reading this and are getting up to run and record this fact, maybe half of them will write down “clockwise” and the rest will write down “counter-clockwise”. Could this fact (about the earth’s rotation — not whether it is deemed to be clockwise or counter-clockwise) be the cause of all evolutionary processes? Perhaps — after all: presumably the Earth has been rotating this way the entire time during which evolution has happened, and there are no data to contradict this possibility (therefore, some might argue: that is proof! )
Why have both Germanic and Romance languages developed the way they have? Is it evolution? Self-organization? …? Your guess is as good as mine! Or maybe it was the rotation of the Milky Way galaxy?
In some languages, animal doctors have a specific name (such as “veterinarian”). Sometimes, there are people who care for specific animals who are not referred to as animal doctors or veterinarians, but by other names — such as “beekeeper”. Yet as far as I know, beekeepers are not to blame if certain species of bees become extinct. Does any of this make any logical sense? No.
It seems to be difficult for humans to accept that there are some processes over which they have little or no control — either individually or collectively. The evolution of languages is a good example. Imagine two hypothetical people: Mister X and Mister Y. Mister X and Mister Y might consider themselves to be so great that it doesn’t matter to them whether you call them a veterinarian, an animal doctor, a beekeeper, a banker or a politician. They are both capable of working, but maybe they do not wish to be referred to as “just another worker”. They consider themselves to be “Mister X” and “Mister Y” — so you should refer to them by “their” names.
But what if someone’s animal is sick? Then that person might search for a solution — would the person say “oh, I know: I will go to Mr. X, because he’s a nice guy and I think he knows a lot”? Perhaps — but what if Mr. X knows nothing about bees, or even about animals in general, … their health, their treatment, etc.? Oh, that would be sad, then the animal might die.
No one must refer to an “animal doctor” as a “veterinarian” (or vice versa), and the fact many people do use these (or similar) terms is not by decree or fiat, or as a grass roots movement,… — it simply happens… by self-organisation.
The most sinister of all retard media hoaxes is the idea that someone has “arrived” in society when they are mentioned in a prominent retard media publication
This hoax is of fundamental importance in retard media — because if retard media makers are able to convince people of this, then they can get people to pay money (i.e., buy advertising space) to appear (in the hope of thereby “arriving” in society) which is the entire business model.
It’s understood that Hollywood sells Californication…
Online literacy is lacking — in particular: Most people have little or no idea of how the “title” idea translates from print to the corresponding concept on the World-Wide Web. Indeed, there may in fact be no corresponding term at all.
In the print era, the mass production of texts dictated that each text needed a unique name. Many thousands of words came to be collectively known as “Moby Dick” — and not just any “Moby Dick”, but specifically Herman Melville’s “Moby Dick”.
There is probably no online equivalent for this concept. The file path or directory structure to locate / reference a file has little to do with the construction of a webpage. One single webpage is usually made up of dozens — if not hundreds — of files. The webpage may have a “title” tag in HTML, but there is no limit to the number of HTML pages that can have the same “title” tag, the same “author” tag and so on. There is no control whatsoever of the use of such tags — anyone can give any webpage the “title” tag “Moby Dick” and the “author” tag “Herman Melville“. HTML tags are nothing more than a meaningless farce.
It is particularly ironic, that one of the most valuable “Internet” companies is a search engine that uses such ridiculous data to “organize all the world’s information”… — and 99% of people are so illiterate that they would probably not even get this joke. When people finally wake up and smell the coffee, you had better hope that you have already divested your portfolio of all so-called “tech” stocks, because otherwise you will probably learn a very hard lesson.
The way information is organized online from a legal point of view is an entirely different matter. All information is hierarchically organized in domains, and at each level the authority is inherited from that of the immediately higher level. Most people are completely oblivious of this simple fact, and they actually believe that what they refer to as “their” Facebook page actually belongs to them (and not Facebook, Inc).
Perhaps the most straightforward way of explaining this to the by and large illiterate masses is to compare the web to a set of dictionaries. Just as there is a “Webster’s Dictionary” and also a “Oxford English Dictionary”, so too there is “.com” and “.net”. Indeed: There are many more dictionaries, and there are also many more top-level domains. When someone professes to understand English, they would probably adhere to what most people consider to be English — in other words: In the case of American English, Webster’s Dictionary; In the case of Oxford English, the Oxford Dictionary. For both cases — for dictionaries as well as for top-level domains — each string is given one entry. All of the information about that string (within that dictionary or that top-level domain) is contained in that entry — there are no duplicates. Likewise, just as the team that creates Webster’s Dictionary may be a different team than the team that creates Oxford English Dictionary, so too the team that controls the .com registry may be a different team than the team that controls the .net registry.
This is, more or less, how domains are legally recognized… — but at least 9 times out of 10, people will believe that domains are the online equivalent of “Herman Melville” and/or “Moby Dick”. Likewise: At least 9 out of 10 people believe that entering a string like “Herman Melville” or “Moby Dick” at the website google.com means something more than entering the string somewhere else. Indeed, there are now laws in Europe that aim to regulate what can happen when entering strings at google.com — so perhaps “Google results” are no longer entirely up to the government of the United States of America (as Hillary Clinton once declared them to be).
There are primarily two reasons for this — both of which are based on the limited literacy skills of the uneducated masses:
They can’t really comprehend what the fine print means;
They can’t seem to learn from history.